The Real Meaning of 'Good' and 'Evil'

How are saintly people different from 'evil' ones? What does 'good' really mean?

It's a dangerous over-simplification to believe that some people are innately ‘good’ while others are innately ‘evil’ or ‘bad.’ This misleading concept underpins the justice system of many countries - ‘bad’ people commit crimes, and since they are intrinsically ‘bad’, they should be locked away so that they can’t harm us with their ‘evil’ behaviour. This concept has also fuelled many wars and conflicts in history, and even in the present day. It makes groups believe that they are fighting a just cause against an ‘evil’ enemy and that once the ‘evil’ people have been killed, peace and goodness will reign supreme.

Human nature is infinitely more complex than this, of course. In human beings, ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are fluid. People can be a combination of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ qualities. Some people who behave cruelly and brutally can be rehabilitated and eventually display ‘good’ qualities such as empathy and kindness. And rather than being intrinsic, most cruel or brutal behaviour is due to environmental factors, such as an abusive childhood, or ‘social learning’ from a family or peers.

The Meaning of Good and Evil

What do we really mean when we use these simplistic terms, ‘good’ and ‘evil’?

‘Good’ means a lack of self-centredness. It means the ability to empathise with other people, to feel compassion for them, and to put their needs before your own. It means, if necessary, sacrificing your own well-being for the sake of others’. It means benevolence, altruism and selflessness, and self-sacrifice towards a greater cause - all qualities which stem from a sense of empathy. It means being able to see beyond the superficial difference of race, gender or nationality and relate to a common human essence beneath them.

All of the ‘saintly’ people in human history have these qualities in abundance. Think of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, risking their own safety and well-being for the goal of gaining equal rights and freedom for Indians and African Americans. These were human beings with an exceptional degree of empathy and compassion, which overrode any concern for their own ambitions or well-being.

‘Evil’ people are those who are unable to empathise with others. As a result, their own needs and desires are of paramount importance. They are selfish, self-absorbed and narcissistic. In fact, other people only have value for them to the extent that they can help them satisfy their own desires, or to which they can exploit them. This applies to dictators like Stalin and Hitler, and to serial killers and rapists. I would argue that their primary characteristics is an inability to empathise with others. They can’t sense other people’s emotions or their suffering, can’t see the world from other people’s perspective, and so have no sense of their rights. Other human beings are just objects to them, which is what makes their brutality and cruelty possible.

Good and Evil as Flexible

Most of us lie somewhere between the extremes of Gandhi and Hitler on the spectrum of human behavour. Sometimes we may behave badly, when egocentric impulses cause us to put our needs before the welfare of others. Sometimes we behave in a saintly fashion, when empathy and compassion impel us to put the needs of others before our own, resulting in altruism and kindness.

The real difference between this idea of ‘good and evil’ and the traditional concept is that empathy or a lack of empathy aren’t fixed. Although people with a psychopathic personality appear to be unable to develop empathy, for most of us, empathy - or goodness - is a quality that can be cultivated. This is recognised by Buddhism, and most other spiritual traditions. As we practise meditation or mindfulness, and as we become less attached to materialism and status-seeking, we become more open and more connected, and so more selfless and altruistic.

The ‘fluidity’ of goodness is also recognised by the process of ‘restorative justice’, which is becoming more and more widely used within European justice systems. Rather than locking ‘bad’ people away - which is unfortunately so widely practiced by the US penal system - restorative justice gives offenders the opportunity to meet their victims, to see how their crimes have affected them, which often leads to a sense of empathy for their victims - which in turn frequently leads to rehabilitation.

This is an optimistic view of nature, but I would go even further. Because the goodness in human beings emerges when we are connected - when we spread out into empathy with one another - I believe that goodness expresses something fundamental about human nature, even if it might be sometimes difficult to see. ‘Evil’ is an aberration, a form of pathology, as the psychopathic personality shows, which only emerges when we are broken off into disconnected fragments.

Steve Taylor PhD is a senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Beckett University, UK. He is the author of Back to Sanity: Healing the Madness of the Human Mind. Eckhart Tolle has called his work 'an important contribution to the shift in consciousness happening on our planet at this time.' He was recently included in Mind, Body, Spirit magazine's list of 'The 100 most spiritually influential living people.' stevenmtaylor.com

The thing is, that some individuals with psychopathy (or who have a high degree of psychopathic traits) are really, really good at *appearing* to be just ordinary, good people. They don't look evil, and they don't sound evil, at least in public.

In fact, some can even appear to be unusually charming and charismatic: others are attracted to them! And if the psychopathic individual is also physically beautiful, intelligent and ambitious, with a high degree of cognitive empathy (the ability to "read" other people's needs, wishes, and vulnerabilities) well, those are the psychopaths who can do the most damage in the world: start world wars, wreck the economy of nations, engage in genocide of entire populations, etc.

As you point out, garden-variety evil, the "sociopath next door" can simply be the neighbor who poisons your pet dog or seduces your small child into allowing sexual contact. Or the co-worker who steals your ideas and then sets you up so it appears that you are the idea-thief, or the business partner who embezzles the company funds and runs away to Argentina with your spouse, or the preacher who comforts grieving young widows with his hands and his body instead of spiritual balm, or the neighborhood crystal meth manufacturer.

I agree with you though, that the basic dividing line RE evil is that lack of empathy or pure selfishness that results in treating other people like objects to be used, or obstacles to be eliminated.

I'm glad someone brought up the NPD issue. With psychopathy, the damage can be so deep and the behavior so destructive towards others that the most effective measure for all concerned is to put strong borders.

It seems important, however, to emphasize the difference between behavior and the manifesting, creative life which is inherent within each of us. This recognition affirms the freedom to change.

When we do this, we awaken directly to the equation of suffering V well-being towards the collective group. Then, doors of compassion can open a little within the understanding that the individual's state is, as it always was and always will be, his or her own responsibility within the struggle for happiness.

So, how would YOU handle it if it turned out that YOUR next-door neighbor offered to sell YOUR 12-year- son some Meth, or if your little 6-year-old daughter tells you that Mr. Neighbor touched her on her private parts and asked her to touch him?

Would your "door of compassion" be open, or would you turn the guy in, let your kids testify against him in court, and hope that his sorry ass gets slammed in the federal pen for a good long stretch?

Hurting kids is Evil, in my book. No room for "compassion" when the safety of children is at stake.

If you honestly would turn him in out of some sick twisted idea of justice rather than in an attempt to keep your neighborhood (and others affected by him) safe, then you deserve to be locked up. No questions asked, that's undeniably selfish and wrong.

all the staff at brunswick will be under the death heart spell if they try to plot on my son provoke him entrap him sabotage him ruin his plans hell dog panic attack they will be forbidden from doing anything that will hinder his release they will end up in the loony bin starting now every person in that place will be under the spell scare top death of my son everyone will refrain from messing with him.

Mother Thersa sacrificed? She was sadistic letting people die without any pain support what so ever sound pretty cruel ihmo easier to relink what im fidning https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/a-new-expose-on-mother-teresa-shows-that-she-and-the-vatican-were-even-worse-than-we-thought/

The Yin and Yang of human behavior, the equal opposites. Funny how 'Gandhi' ends with 'hi', and 'Hitler' begins with 'Hi'. Their names join together, like two boys skipping, hand in hand across the field.

just a thought. good and evil are not a person, place, or thing but an end result. if a person takes an object that is made from the same place, same stuff and looks the same but one dosnt work well and the other dose. the one that works well is good and the one that dosnt is bad. take two people that do the same thing with the same intent but with a different ending. for example: two people go to jail for the same thing, do their time and get out. one continues to do the same and the other changes becoming someone who helps others. the one that didnt change is considered bad while the other is considered good. they both started off doing the same thing but its the end result that decided who was good or bad. has anyone noticed that in the stories of god and the devil that both do the same things (god kills and the devil saves to get what they want) but it depends on the end result if its good or not. if the end result of the deed is creation or salvation then god did it. if the end result is destruction or condemtion then the devil did it. also, kind of odd that everyone isnt judged until the end of time. anyway, i cant find any examples of person, place, thing, idea, etc. that dose not follow this. it is the end result that makes it good or bad and not the thing itself.

In the world of manipulation by religion, Once you open a person's mind into believing in something as ludicrous as god, you need to close it again. Hence the creation of evil/the devil, the tool that leads a religious believer into denying all but what he/she has been told.

These days it has become fashionable to say that evil people are not able to empathise. The psychopath and the narcisist are therefore evil people. But I think we believe this because it is such a pleasant idea, It is easy to say: "hey, I'm not a serial killer and I love puppies, so I'm a good person. I know how to empathise and this means I'm not evil." But of course this is not true. It's just a little too easy, don't you think ? Autists cannot empathise and they are not necessarily evil, in fact they can be as good as anybody else.
The real evil lies in the lie. Thruth is a relative thing, granted, but do you sometimes face ugly little traits about yourself that you can 'explain'? Things you're secretely ashamed about ? Or is it others that don't understand you ? There are people who have the courage to be honest and there are people who don't. Narcisists and psychopaths have not problem telling lies, autistic people do, it they're good that is. (And yes, it can take me a while before I get round to stop explaining away bad behaviour, I live in the grey zone).

"Cognitive empathy" is the ability to accurately "read" another person's feelings or emotions by their tone of voice, facial expressions and/or body language. Those who have a lot of narcissistic pd and antisocial pd traits appear to be VERY good at "cognitive empathy." (for example, serial killer Ted Bundy said he could tell which individuals would make good "targets" because they had been previously victimized or assaulted, just by their walking gait. A researcher tested this claim in an experiment, shown in the documentary film "I, Psychopath", and found that test subjects that rated high in the number of psychopathic traits on the psychopathy checklist, the PCL, were also very accurate at picking out former assault victims by their gait, as compared to test subjects who scored low on the PCL.) The quicker that someone with npd, aspd or psychopathy can get an accurate "read" on you, the more successfully they can con, manipulate and use you. Psychologist and researcher Dr. Simon Baron Cohen (not the comedian; but they're cousins) describes this as "zero-negative" empathy.

"Affective empathy" is the ability and desire to actually care about another person's feelings, such as wishing to comfort someone who is sad or injured, or cheering for a friend who has won an award. Autism-spectrum disordered people have a difficult time with cognitive empathy; they can't "read" which emotions other people are feeling (its as though they're "deaf" to emotional cues) but once they understand, most of them are able to experience affective empathy: they can and do care about other's feelings. Dr. Cohen has described this as "zero-positive" empathy.

So, I agree that a key difference is that those with a lot of npd and/or aspd traits, or psychopathy, tend to use their cognitive empathy skills for evil purposes: to take advantage of, use, and exploit other people, and do so with no remorse for the harm they do. A human being is little more than a Kleenex tissue to a psychopath. Dr. Robert Hare has stated that psychopaths regard their fellow human beings in much the same way that a cat regards a mouse. That pretty much sums up my thoughts about npd, aspd and psychopathy, as well.

A creep I know is a full blown NPD psychopath who has no empathy and is a criminal and bully. He's very sneaky, and will do whatever it takes to get what he wants.

So I have come to realise some people really are evil. The creep may not have started out that way, but he is evil now. He might be able to change with help, but he will never seek it. He has lots of connections - and I'll bet he'll be unmasked one day as a serial killer or something.

I think this is me. I find it exciting that someone would care enough about me to post this. Sorry pal, there will be no murder or child rape for me. Ever. Suicide is also wrong. How can there be redemption, when redemption is the same as GOOD FEELINGS? I am trying to love myself. It hurts, and I was never competent at it. How is it DONE? Maybe I'd have killed for an awnser to that! How can I TREAT YOU WELL!

Good and evil are not actually real, they are made up in the human brain. People see them differently, because everything involving good and evil are moral dilemmas. Let's use Star Wars as an example. Anakin knew that someone important to him would die if he didn't become strong enough to protect her. The only way to become strong enough would be to join the dark side. He does it even though he has fought it for years, to protect his lover. His mentor finds out about this and defeats him, leaving him to die in the heat beside the lava. He survives and joins the the dark lord who would make him strong. What he doesn't know is that his lover is pregnant. The mother dies when giving birth, but the twin babies are perfectly healthy. One of the twins later encounter his father in an attempt to stop the dark forces. The father helps his son when he is in danger, killing the dark lord that he has followed for quite some time and dying in the process. Was Anakin really 'evil' or did he do it because he was 'good'?

Nobody's arguing that good and evil aren't human concepts. We're arguing the semantics of what they mean as ideas and what we should really be opposed to. I'd say it's as simple as benevolence vs. malevolence, and anything a narcissist without empathy can do will always remain in the middle.

Neutrality, while it can be very bad, isn't the worst it can be. Evil has always been about causing harm to others, and selfishness isn't necessarily what causes the most harm. Sadism is. If you combine the two, you get malignant narcissism, known as the 'root of all evil.'

So an evil deed is only evil if the person who performs it enjoys it? This seems unreasonable to say the least. If I kill someone because I have to doesn't it make the same impact as if it wasn't by a forced hand? This voluntary killer could be a sociopath, maybe even a psychopath, but that wouldn't be evil? Sadists cause a lot of harm because they enjoy it, but can you really call the deeds of a sociopath anything other than evil? I'm sociopathic myself, I know all about it. If I do somethi ng considered evil, then I should be judged by my actions, not by how I am as a person. Judge a person by his actions, not his skills, pros or cons. This "source of evil" isn't evil, it's a human born with defections in his brain, as are sociopaths and people born with compulsive syndromes.

I'm a flawed man, with a strange mind and a peculiar way of seeing things.

Yeah, no. It's not just egotism that's evil. It's malevolence and sadism. That's what evil actually is. Somebody who doesn't empathize with others can't be evil because they can't relish in their pain. Not all sociopaths or people with autism are evil, that's a very bad rumour to be spreading!!

The reason why people classify things as good and evil is because the human mind selects which category they should go in. For example, a person may say that a political leader is their version of good person while another person may defy the leader as evil. There for there is no absolute definition of good and evil. It applies to scenario's where the good go bad and the bad come good. For there to be a official definition of good and evil, there has to be a repetition of the action to define it. A person who is angered, saddened or fells guilty after an event may consider that scenario bad while those moments where the person may feel joy, happiness or relief consider it as a good moment.
E.g America's current vote is for the ban on guns. The people who vote against have usually been affected by a event while the opposing party may support their weapons for protection and safety.

A manifestation of perceived "evil" is the personality of sociopaths, to varying degrees, of course.

I have encountered at least three sociopaths that I know of in the last five years, and have come to understand that unlike empaths, they are acting in a manner they perceive as highly rational, logical, and sensible. If all of us were "wired" not to need love, empathy, and compassion in order to feel "normal," we would act as sociopaths do.

I am not suggesting that I condone or like sociopathic behavior, but I understand it better after my experiences. The philosopher and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that "good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this—the only right is what is after my constitution—the only wrong is what is against it—what I must do is all that concerns me." Although this quote is taken out of context, and Emerson was by no means suggesting that we should all behave as sociopaths do, there is some logic here.

Sociopaths intrigue me, so much so, that I published a novel, Molly Bonamici, which has a few sociopathic, even likeable characters.

What makes someone evil or good is always easy... Good people help others while evil people kill and steal for their own selfish desires. This is not always the case and reality is much more shades of gray. What made Darth Vader such an interesting character is he was absolutely convinced that he was on the right side, restoring order to the galaxy and preventing a brutal conflict. Hitler probably felt the same... The nationalist making their country great again and saving it from evil foreigners. Like Donald trump with America. The overall theme is it depends on your point of view, and whether the ends justify the means. Is a strong nation worth it when it requires the genecide of your neighbour?

The answer to your question depends on your ultimate goal. If a strong nation is what you desire, the most logical thing to do is realising your vision through any means, don't you agree? Lack of empathy leads to consequential thinking and let's a person think clearly by weighing the results of an action and decide if it's the logical thing to do.

Well stated analysis, but I'd be careful using Ghandi as my saintly paragon of virtue. What about his racism toward the Kaffirs? What about his ivory tower, New Age, cultish utopianism? E.g. telling the Jews it would be better to commit suicide by "throwing themselves into the sea from the cliffs" than defend themselves against Hitler's violence;
What about his Mao like imposition of "autarky" on India's poor, which closed them off to the economic boons and efficiencies of Western capitalism - which he regarded as "evil."

Indeed, Gandhi spent decades making sympathetic noises to the poor. But Gandhi’s ideas were essentially useless. In his campaigns against British salt and textiles, he planted the seeds of India’s disastrous notions that trade equaled exploitation, that autarky and protectionism would save jobs, that machines and technology were the enemy.

It took until 1991 for India to shake off Mahatmanomics. Since liberalization of its economy, exports have nearly tripled as a percentage of GDP and per-capita real wealth has more than doubled.

Yet, though he drew the wrong conclusion from his instincts, Gandhi had the principle right when he said, “I must confess that I do not draw a sharp or any distinction between economics and ethics. Economics that hurt the moral well-being of an individual or a nation are immoral and, therefore, sinful.” Consider Mahatmanomics the original sin of post-colonial India.

In essence, Ghandi was more a knee-jerk, celebrity activist (a la Jane Fonda, or Sean Penn) than a truly enlightened, "good" leader of mankind.

Einstein reportedly commented that "scientists make poor philosophers." One would think that Psychologists would make excellent philosophers... but sadly, I find that poor thinking haunts even highly-credentialed persons.

In his second paragraph, Dr. Taylor reminds us that "‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are relative - one person’s ‘good’ is another person’s ‘evil’." This becomes important later...

He continues, saying, "[t]hey are also flexible - people can be a combination of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ qualities, and some people who behave cruelly and brutally can be rehabilitated and eventually display ‘good’ qualities such as empathy and kindness."

Interestingly, the antecedent to the first word in this sentence ("they") is "'good' and 'evil'". But after describing "good and evil" as "flexible", he attempts to justify this statement not by speaking of good and evil itself, but the capacity of humans to be a bit of both, and to "move" on the moral spectrum from "better" to "worse" or vice-versa.

This is totally a non sequitor at best and nonsensical at worst, as his statement says nothing about the "flexibility" of good or evil. Furthermore, the example actually implies that good and evil are NOT, in fact, flexible--for if these concepts are flexible, then to say that one can "be rehabilitated and eventually display good qualities" is meaningless... just as the person becomes "good", then the definitio of the "good" just might change, leaving him "evil" again!

On another level, the author's contention says absolutely nothing about the person being "rehabilitated", but only about the author! Frighteningly, this implies that for the subject to be rehabilitated, he must conform to the author's definition of goodness! This sounds like a plot from a bad B movie where the totalitarian dictator forces everyone to be just like himself!

Also implicit in the author's statement is that one can "be rehabilitated and eventually display EVIL qualities"... for after all, "‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are relative - one person’s ‘good’ is another person’s ‘evil’."

With that oh-so intellectual-sounding statement, the author gave up his right to call anything "good"! With one breath, he denies that the concepts of good and evil are anything other than one's opinion; with the next, he tries to say that men can be made "better", or "more good"... but he's left the definition of what is "good" open to every human to decide for themselves.

And regardless of how subjective he claims these concepts to be, he still speaks of them as if he knows what the definition of Good is for all of humanity!

====

"‘Good’ means a lack of self-centredness. It means the ability to empathise with other people, to feel compassion for them, and to put their needs before your own. It means, if necessary, sacrificing your own well-being for the sake of others’. It means benevolence, altruism and selflessness, and self-sacrifice towards a greater cause - all qualities which stem from a sense of empathy. It means being able to see beyond the superficial difference of race, gender or nationality and relate to a common human essence beneath them."

====

Oddly enough, though the author has declared goodness to be subjective, this is not a subjective definition. This is an objective criteria that can be evaluated externally without regard to the subjective observer. Furthermore, the author has not defined "goodness", he has described actions and attitudes that he deems to be "good", without telling us what makes them any better than their antithesis.

The author uses Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. as examples of those "good" persons who were selfless. However, there obviously were many persons who hated these men for the stance they took (as evidenced by their deaths), and who would call them anything but "good".

So which is it? Were their actions taken on behalf of civil rights "good" or "evil"? When Dr. King's efforts led to Civil Rights laws being passed in the United States, was that objectively better than the previous state of affairs, or was it simply different?

The same arguments may be made against the author's simplistic description of evil. Stalin and Hitler had their supporters who would have called them "good". By denying the objectivity of good and evil, the author has no grounds on which to say these supporters were wrong or misguided. They simply have a different definition of "good" and "evil".

He then attempts to defend the concept of the flexibility of good and evil. However, he again doesn't describe these concepts, but rather the behaviors of men. These are not the same thing. We would say that a runner completing a mile race in less than four minutes was a fast runner... but that doesn't mean that "fast" actually IS the actions of the runner. To describe the meaning of "fast" by describing the race is illogical.

Rather, "fast" is an adjective that describes in broad terms the behavior of the runner's objective performance. While it is imprecise, it is not subjective. It points decidedly to one side of the scale, while its opposite, "slow" points to the other. While Usain Bolt's "fast" might be incredibly beyond my own "fast", in no case would one say that you could simply flip the definitions so that running a mile in 4 minutes was "faster" than walking a mile in an hour!

But such a disparity is common when discussing moral issues. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Many say that it is immoral to prevent their union, while many others say that it immoral to allow their union. The two positions turn the scale on its head!

For the runners, their objective velocity underpins the relative terms used for descriptive purposes. The same must be true for "good" and "evil" if the concepts are to have any meaning at all. An underlying standard must exist, external to all men, that defines the continuum of morality. Only then can these terms have any coherence.

While I disagree strongly with most of the article, the author does make one very insightful comment near the end... but it destroys the bulk of his earlier arguments. He says, "‘Evil’ is an aberration, a form of pathology, as the psychopathic personality shows, which only emerges when we are broken off into disconnected fragments."

For "evil" to be an aberration implies that there is a standard from which it diverges. In this, the author agrees with St. Augustine:

====
[T]he good in created things can be diminished and augmented.
For good to be diminished is evil; still, however much it is diminished,
something must remain of its original nature as long as it exists
at all. For no matter what kind or however insignificant a thing
may be, the good which is its "nature" cannot be destroyed
without the thing itself being destroyed. There is good reason,
therefore, to praise an uncorrupted thing, and if it were indeed
an incorruptible thing which could not be destroyed, it would doubtless
be all the more worthy of praise. When, however, a thing is corrupted,
its corruption is an evil because it is, by just so much, a privation.

From this it follows that there is
nothing to be called evil if there is nothing good. A good that
wholly lacks an evil aspect is entirely good. Where there is some
evil in a thing, its good is defective or defectible. Thus there
can be no evil where there is no good. This leads us to a surprising
conclusion: that, since every being, in so far as it is a being,
is good, if we then say that a defective thing is bad, it would
seem to mean that we are saying that what is evil is good, that
only what is good is ever evil and that there is no evil apart from
something good. This is because every actual entity is good. Nothing
evil exists in itself, but only as an evil aspect of some actual
entity. Therefore, there can be nothing evil except something good.

From the opening remarks: ‘Good’ means a lack of self-centeredness...and relate to a common human essence beneath them.

What is the source for the definition of good above? Apparently the definition is given with the presupposition that it is inherently true and thus no footnotes or references. But why? Who says so? Why can we agree?

For the most part I'd agree being connected can make you far less evil. I certainly like to speak to anyone. I am far from evil when I'm less connected. But it is interesting to think I can be closer to altruistic when I'm more connected. Makes sense, for sure.

Wow, so many comments to this article! Still need to go through it all. Some of you should write a book, ....and one person has!
This question has been on my mind lately moreso than ever. For myself a good person can be defined as someone who does more benefit to him/herself as well as others. By this measure, a bad person would be someone who does more harm to him/herself and others. Problematically or not, good and bad goes beyond the Religious, Atheists and Scientific thinking/selves. For using this acquired definition (for myself) evil and goodness can both be found within those ascribed to religious and non-religious beliefs. It's alarmingly overwhelming and thought-provoking. Then it always go to show, 'never judge a book by it's cover' and maybe 'some covers are just the same as the book on the inside". Sounds too simple, but this is the truth in my experiences. A possibility exists that during interactions with an individual, if that person demonstrates more good to himself and others, then this can be a sure sign. But, like Shakespeare has stated, "this world is a stage and we are the actors". I think intuitively as well you may gather some sense of a person's motive. Yet, still it can get tricky! And of course there is an understanding that some people need to be shown/taught how to be good. Maybe they never had any good role models.

So, when I wrote above, the word "benefit",it means in terms of kindness, gentleness, forgiving, giving/sharing. What is known as evil/bad traits would include, hurting others deliberately (physically/emotionally), unmerciful, selfish.

President Trump appears to fit well the definition as I read it of an evil person; narcissistic, selfish, self-absorbed, his own needs and desires paramount, uses others to satisfy his own desires, unable to empathise.
The world watches with horror as this reality TV star reeks havoc everywhere. Can he be stopped? Is he losing his base support, if not , why not?